Skip to comments.Hypothesis: All Odd Numbers Greater Than One are Prime.
Posted on 01/18/2011 11:17:36 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets
Hypothesis: All odd numbers greater than one are prime
Engineer: 3, 5, 7, YES!
Physicist: 3, 5, 7, [experimental error], 11, 13, [experimental error], 17, 19. [grant runs dry.] At the 95% confidence level and within the limit of experimental error, we cannot reject the hypothesis that all odd numbers greater than one are primes.
Accountant: What do you want them to be?
Mathematician: Before we can answer that question we need to define a Galois field of positive integers and then over that field specify an operation, factorization such that for any member of the field, the operation of factorization produces a unique set of primatives, which are members of that field and which we will call primes. Now, ok, I forgot, what was the question?
AP Reporter: Experts say that it does not matter whether or not any particular odd number greater than one is prime, because its Sarah Palins fault, regardless, unless its a good thing in which case, President Obama hasnt gotten nearly the credit he deserves.
President Obama: Aspirationally, as part of the American Dream, every number, should be allowed to decide for itself whether or not it is prime and furthermore, it is invidious and unfair to label certain numbers as odd or "prime" by some arbitrary standard of divisablity. I stand for what unites us, not what divides us!
Ezra Klein: Its just a stunt! No body can tell what what numbers mean! Theyre really old, over a hundred years old. Why should anyone today feel constrained by what a bunch of people in Greece or wherever, way back in grandpas day, thought about prime numbers? How many prime numbers can there possibly be? And whos ever heard of any of them? Do you personally know any prime numbers? Can you name two or three? See, I thought not!
Andrei Cherny (of nolabels.org) : The very terms odd and prime are mere labels. We must put our labels aside, and put the issues and whats best for the nation first.
NYT Headline: Not all odd number greater than one may be prime. Subhead: Women, minorities disproportionately impacted, experts say.
Nitpicking Freeper: All Odd Numbers Greater Than [OR EQUAL TO] One are Prime.
There, fixed it.
Women’s Studies Prof: Primeness and Oddness are social constructs and have no objective reality. They are a patriarchal construct designed to oppress women.
Gender Studies Prof: Primeness and Oddness are social constructs and have no objective reality. They are a breeder construct designed to oppress GLBT people.
African-American Studies Prof: Primeness and Oddness are social constructs and have no objective reality. They are a racist construct designed to oppress African-Americans.
One, by definition, is not prime. I have suspicions about 9 and 15, and I’ll keep my eye on 23. Just in case.
We'll have to recheck your calculations. For now we are carrying it as an experimental error. (See "physicists" above.)
Wait....what? I forgot the question. Guess my profession.
2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29
31 37 41 43 47 53 59 61 67 71
73 79 83 89 97 101 103 107 109 113
127 131 137 139 149 151 157 163 167 173
179 181 191 193 197 199 211 223 227 229
233 239 241 251 257 263 269 271 277 281
283 293 307 311 313 317 331 337 347 349
353 359 367 373 379 383 389 397 401 409
419 421 431 433 439 443 449 457 461 463
467 479 487 491 499 503 509 521 523 541
If we let “1” in the club, then the prime number theorem gets messy. It’s the uniqueness part.
Nice try. Needs a bit more development work.
“Dying is easy....Comedy is hard.”
attributed to many actors, perhaps originally from Edmund Kean.
Politician? (I work with a lot of "applied" mathematicians. Most of them don't remember Rolle's Theorem, but they transpose a mean Jacobian.)
That’s not embellishment. I suppose it’s intended as mockery, destruction or derision, then?
Are you a Libra?
Obama: it is racist to call any number odd.
I’m not sure, I hear they changed the zodiac dates.
Not in my newspaper.
float x = 2.000;
x = sqrt(float(4))
if Not(x = 2.000)
That is soooo judgmental. I'll bet you're a Taurus.
On the first day of basic training, the drill sergeant put his traumatized recruits into something of a platoon formation and directed the soldiers to count off. From somewhere in the third or fourth rank, he heard a soldier with a very effeminate voice drag out a long "oooooone" before the rest of the soldiers down the rank loudly and quickly barked out, "2, 3, 4, etc." Incensed at the apparent lack of motivation, the drill sergeant stormed over to the first file, eyed the apparent offender up and down and snarled, "Are you 'One'"?
The recruit lisped back with girlish grin, "Why yeth, thergeant. Are you one, too?"
You went to basic with Bawney Fwank?
Wonder how big those get....LOL?
Working with a lot of mathematicians, you must be particularly lonesome in MA. ;-) I know I am.
No, they are mostly very good guys and girls. Sure, they made a mistakes when they were young and in college, but they haven’t let ruin their lives.
No, just a straight review from a tough critic.
I’d let in 1 before 2. Two isn’t even odd.
In number theory, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic (or the unique-prime-factorization theorem) states that any integer greater than 1 can be written as a unique product (up to ordering of the factors) of prime numbers.
We need two to take care to those pesky even numbers. If you let one in, then the factorization is not unique, since you can add as many factors of one as you please.
Frinstance: 6936 = 2^3 x 3^1 x 17^2 = 1 x 2^3 x 3^1 x 17^2 = 1^2 x 2^3 x 3^1 x 17^2 = 1^3 x 2^3 x 3^1 x 17^2